Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 2]

Bombay High Court

Kailas Vasantrao Shrote vs The State Of Maharashtra And Another on 11 December, 2020

Bench: S. V. Gangapurwala, Shrikant D. Kulkarni

                                    1                965 wp-7746-20

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                  BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                       WRIT PETITION NO. 7746 OF 2020


Kailas s/o Vasantrao Shrote                            ...Petitioner

                       Versus

The State of Maharashtra and Anr.                      ...Respondents

                         .......
Mr. Deepak D. Choudhari, Advocate for Petitioner
Mr. P.K.Lakhotiya, A.G.P. for Respondents No. 1 and 2
                         .......



                        CORAM   :       S. V. GANGAPURWALA &
                                        SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, JJ.
                        DATE    :       11-12-2020.




PER COURT :

01. The petitioner is placed on supernumerary post.

02. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is appointed on compassionate ground. The petitioner is placed on supernumerary post on the ground that the petitioner has not submitted the validity certificate. The learned Counsel submits that the proposal for validation of the caste claim of the petitioner was referred to the committee, however, the same is dismissed ::: Uploaded on - 14/12/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 10/02/2021 00:33:57 ::: 2 965 wp-7746-20 on the ground of territorial jurisdiction. Validity certificate is not necessary as the appointment of the petitioner is on compassionate ground and not on the reserved post / category. The learned Counsel relies upon the Judgment in Writ Petition No. 2131/2011 dated 24.8.2011.

03. The learned A.G.P. submits that the father of the petitioner was appointed from reserved category.

04. We have considered the contentions of the respective parties.

05. The petitioner was not appointed on the post reserved for any particular category, but on compassionate ground on account of death of his father. No policy or rules have been placed on record by the learned A.G.P. to suggest that though the petitioner has been appointed on compassionate ground he has to be considered against reservation. Moreover, the impugned Order is passed without issuing notice to the petitioner and without following principles of natural justice.

06. In the light of the above, the impugned Order is ::: Uploaded on - 14/12/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 10/02/2021 00:33:57 ::: 3 965 wp-7746-20 quashed and set aside. Rule accordingly is made absolute in above terms. No costs.





    [SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI]                    [S.V.GANGAPURWALA]
                 JUDGE                                  JUDGE
Dahibhate/-




 ::: Uploaded on - 14/12/2020                 ::: Downloaded on - 10/02/2021 00:33:57 :::